Who should the NDP choose as an Interim Leader?

263 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

swallow wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If this thread ever starts winding down, we should discuss which animal should be depicted on the one dollar coin.

How about we copy the [url=http://assets.rappler.com/FDD4AE64344E4200A500B28DD11419BD/img/68D543003... Australian $5 bill[/url]? The CBC compares it to "clown puke"! 

very colourful.

NorthReport

Tick tock, tick tock!

Mulcair returns to the Commons after emotional, divisive convention

NDP House leader Peter Julian said he continues to support Mulcair and isn't aware of any caucus members who want him to step down.

"I certainly have not heard any of that," he said.

The NDP's constitution and the decision of the convention was very clear, Julian said, noting there be a new leadership convention held within two years.

"He will continue as leader until then if he wants to," Julian said.

But some MPs, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions, said they were shocked to hear Mulcair wants to stay on. One called the idea "ridiculous," saying the caucus has not been properly consulted.

On Monday, Vancouver MP Don Davies said it is going to be difficult for Mulcair to stay until a permanent boss is chosen.

"We invited Tom to make his case as to why he should lead us and he got 48 per cent and, you know, numbers are real," he said.

Quebec MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault also said he's not sure if Mulcair should remain in the position.

"I have not made up my mind yet on this question," he said. "It will be a discussion that we will have with the caucus members to see if that would be the ideal situation or if it should be something else."

Montreal MP Alexandre Boulerice said he believes Mulcair ought to be able to stay on as long as he wants, but acknowledged others within the caucus may not agree.


http://www.100milefreepress.net/national/375461631.html

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

It's outrageous that Mulcair failed to tender his resignation after his leadership was so decisively rejected by Convention. Though technically retaining the office of leader until a successor is chosen, Mulcair shows a brazen contempt for the verdict of delegates by staying on. 

The opinion of caucus in all this is interesting but irrelevant. Its role is to advise Federal Council on the appointment of an interim leader when there's a vacancy. And in cases where the federal leader has lost his seat, as Douglas did in 1968 and Lewis did in 1974, the caucus chooses an interim House leader.  They exercised this latter power by naming Lewis as House leader in 1968 and Broadbent as House leader in 1974.

But it is not the role of caucus to affirm or legitimize a leader who has just been rejected by delegates at a convention. 

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Tick tock, tick tock!

Mulcair returns to the Commons after emotional, divisive convention

NDP House leader Peter Julian said he continues to support Mulcair and isn't aware of any caucus members who want him to step down.

"I certainly have not heard any of that," he said.

The NDP's constitution and the decision of the convention was very clear, Julian said, noting there be a new leadership convention held within two years.

"He will continue as leader until then if he wants to," Julian said.

But some MPs, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions, said they were shocked to hear Mulcair wants to stay on. One called the idea "ridiculous," saying the caucus has not been properly consulted.

On Monday, Vancouver MP Don Davies said it is going to be difficult for Mulcair to stay until a permanent boss is chosen.

"We invited Tom to make his case as to why he should lead us and he got 48 per cent and, you know, numbers are real," he said.

Quebec MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault also said he's not sure if Mulcair should remain in the position.

"I have not made up my mind yet on this question," he said. "It will be a discussion that we will have with the caucus members to see if that would be the ideal situation or if it should be something else."

Montreal MP Alexandre Boulerice said he believes Mulcair ought to be able to stay on as long as he wants, but acknowledged others within the caucus may not agree.


http://www.100milefreepress.net/national/375461631.html

I think it's time for Peter Julian to get his hearing checked.

terrytowel

It would be UNPRECENDENTED for the NDP to have an interim leader as it is simple not done in the party. The only other time it has happened is when the leader died in office. We have to go by precedent.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

terrytowel wrote:

It would be UNPRECENDENTED for the NDP to have an interim leader as it is simple not done in the party. The only other time it has happened is when the leader died in office. We have to go by precedent.

The overriding point here is that Mulcair has received what can only be described as a massive vote of non-confidence in his leadership by delegates to the party's convention. That is unprecedented. As Don Davies correctly pointed out, his position as leader is therefore untenable. He has an obligation to resign and make way for an interim leader. 

Mulcair's refusal to resign, backed up by his supporters in caucus and the party establishment, makes a mockery of the party's constitution and of the democratic verdict delivered by delegates.  Those groups that mobilized in favour of a leadership review at convention still have their work cut out for them. They shouldn't disband until Mulcair is well and truly out. 

 

josh

terrytowel wrote:

It would be UNPRECENDENTED for the NDP to have an interim leader as it is simple not done in the party. The only other time it has happened is when the leader died in office. We have to go by precedent.

55 years is not the tablets at Mt. Sinai.

nicky

I think the party is fortunate that Tom is willing to continue as leader until he is replaced.

The level of invective leveled against him in some posts is distubing. As Unionist and others point out he is simply following the democaratic processes of the party. If there was significant opposition to him in caucus I am sure he would have bowed out. But caucus wants him there as a transition. They know his strengths in Parliament which willl be welcome in a time of stress for the party as well as a time when the government is starting to betray its promises.

Tom has shown good grace since the Sunday vote and is still warmly regarded in most quaters. He maintained a healthy net positive approval in the polls. NDP voters in one recent poll wanted him to continue by a margin of about two to one. And he got 48% of the vote in a convention where he was geographically disadvantaged.

So let's lay off on the witch hunt and alllow him some dignity. I suspect in time the party will come to regret the very unwise decision it made on Sunday. Many already do.

josh

If he had any dignity, he would have stepped down. 

Unionist

Coldwell wrote:

Mulcair's refusal to resign, backed up by his supporters in caucus and the party establishment, makes a mockery of the party's constitution and of the democratic verdict delivered by delegates. 

You should perhaps read the constitution. And find out what happened at convention.

1. The delegates didn't vote for Mulcair to leave. There was no motion proposed, or adopted, to that effect. If I'm wrong (and I wasn't present), please refer me to such a motion.

2. Even if the delegates had voted for Mulcair to leave (which they didn't) - it would be legally meaningless. Delegates don't elect or fire the leader. They have no such powers. Mulcair was elected by the members. Unless he voluntarily resigns, he remains the leader until a new one is elected. By the members.

Why should this be so difficult to understand?

 

quizzical

nicky wrote:
They know his strengths in Parliament which willl be welcome in a time of stress for the party as well as a time when the government is starting to betray its promises.

So let's lay off on the witch hunt and alllow him some dignity. I suspect in time the party will come to regret the very unwise decision it made on Sunday. Many already do.

i think the former in bold is why so many alleged NDP here, but Liberal positive during the election, want Mulcair blunted and viewed negatively so their agenda can go forward imv. then the msm can pick it up here and say "well...." and the whole thing is just bs propaganda for the corporate lovers who think they'll get their pay off.

 

josh

Notalib wrote:

Mr Mulcair and his team wrote the rules that make it impossible for the party to remove him from leadership.

That fact alone should be enough for the folks to determine that he needs to go. He should have done the right thing on Election night but he did not and the party has been stuck in a malaise since, dropping to single digits in the polls in BC - where the party results were strongest.

Ever since election night the public narrative has been all about Tom and his role as leader, most of the punditariat has been shocked with his staying past election night where Harper stepped down after losing 240 thousand votes and Mulcair, with his much smaller party, stayed on as leader after losing a million votes and crashing and burning the party for a generation.

The public narrative then focused on convention, because the Mulcair team said there was a "process" for dealing with the leader. And as we learned there clearly is no process. Even if the membership hands the leader his ass on a plate in unprecedented fashion, the leader can decide to stay on according to the rules he himself wrote.

Now we all know he has got 4 mortgages and what not, but all we have now is many more months of the same discussion focused on a zombie leader who just wont go away even after the leadership banged him over the head with a 2x4 and showed him the door.

This is beyond reasonable and entering into the bizarre. What sense of entitlement is required for one to feel they can carry on in such fashion? What is caucus thinking? They must realize that Mulcair cannot speak on behalf of the party with any legitimacy whatsoever.... I can see Trudeau now...... "Mr Mulcair, thanks for the question, but what is your number? Tell us your number? You have not said your number! Let me help you, your number sir is 48, as in 48% of delegates at a convention your team organized turfed you, why are you still here and on whose authroity? Who is it exactly that you speak for and why?"

Anyway this is all stunningly obvious and the affront the leadership and caucus are displaying to the membeship with such hubris is inexecusable. All it shows is that none in the current caucus are leadership material.

Don Davies, at least, has shown that he is.  In any event, as you say, this was something that should have been taken out of the caucus's hands. 

Notalib

Mr Mulcair and his team wrote the rules that make it impossible for the party to remove him from leadership.

That fact alone should be enough for the folks to determine that he needs to go. He should have done the right thing on Election night but he did not and the party has been stuck in a malaise since, dropping to single digits in the polls in BC - where the party results were strongest.

Ever since election night the public narrative has been all about Tom and his role as leader, most of the punditariat has been shocked with his staying past election night where Harper stepped down after losing 240 thousand votes and Mulcair, with his much smaller party, stayed on as leader after losing a million votes and crashing and burning the party for a generation.

The public narrative then focused on convention, because the Mulcair team said there was a "process" for dealing with the leader. And as we learned there clearly is no process. Even if the membership hands the leader his ass on a plate in unprecedented fashion, the leader can decide to stay on according to the rules he himself wrote.

Now we all know he has got 4 mortgages and what not, but all we have now is many more months of the same discussion focused on a zombie leader who just wont go away even after the leadership banged him over the head with a 2x4 and showed him the door.

This is beyond reasonable and entering into the bizarre. What sense of entitlement is required for one to feel they can carry on in such fashion? What is caucus thinking? They must realize that Mulcair cannot speak on behalf of the party with any legitimacy whatsoever.... I can see Trudeau now...... "Mr Mulcair, thanks for the question, but what is your number? Tell us your number? You have not said your number! Let me help you, your number sir is 52, as in 52% of delegates at a convention your team organized turfed you, why are you still here and on whose authroity? Who is it exactly that you speak for and how and why is that the case?"

Anyway this is all stunningly obvious and the affront the leadership and caucus are displaying to the membeship with such hubris is inexecusable. All it shows is that none in the current caucus are leadership material.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Out touch and Out of Date NDP Headquarters wrote:

All across the country, Tom Mulcair’s NDP team is working for you.

Read Tom's story Meet the team

Get email updates. Then chip in. $3 $5 $10 $25 Donate

 

It's really hard to take the NDP seriously when the electorate showed Mulcair the door and the party then followed suit and this is what the party website looks  like today. The Ottawa cabal's disconnect from both the left wing voters in this country and the party membership is truly mind boggling.

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

Mr Mulcair and his team wrote the rules that make it impossible for the party to remove him from leadership.

Wrong. Article VI(3)(a) of the party constitution precedes Mr. Mulcair's leadership:

Quote:
(a)Leader

(i) The Leader shall be elected by secret ballot.

(ii) Every member is entitled to cast a ballot for the selection of the Leader.

[...]

(iv) Should the position of Leader become vacant at any point, the Council may, in consultation with the Parliamentary Caucus, appoint a Leader for the interim period until a new Leader has been elected.

By the way, these rules were decided by Convention delegates. If you have a problem with them, the right place to change them is Convention. Don't you find it amazing that the Edmonton Convention didn't change these rules (which they could easily have done) and then vote to remove Mr. Mulcair (which they never did)?

Quote:
Even if the membership hands the leader his ass on a plate in unprecedented fashion, the leader can decide to stay on according to the rules he himself wrote.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true. It merely reflects on the person who's repeating the falsehoods.

 

Notalib

Unionist wrote:

Notalib wrote:

Mr Mulcair and his team wrote the rules that make it impossible for the party to remove him from leadership.

Wrong. Article VI(3)(a) of the party constitution precedes Mr. Mulcair's leadership:

Wrong? Before Mulcair you could contest the leader at every convention, in other words, every convention was a leadership convention. BIG Changes..... Bro... Big.

 

 

Quote:
(a)Leader

(i) The Leader shall be elected by secret ballot.

(ii) Every member is entitled to cast a ballot for the selection of the Leader.

[...]

(iv) Should the position of Leader become vacant at any point, the Council may, in consultation with the Parliamentary Caucus, appoint a Leader for the interim period until a new Leader has been elected.

By the way, these rules were decided by Convention delegates. If you have a problem with them, the right place to change them is Convention. Don't you find it amazing that the Edmonton Convention didn't change these rules (which they could easily have done) and then vote to remove Mr. Mulcair (which they never did)?

Constitutional changes are not easy..... and I would bet most who voted against Mulcair assumed it would be over right away for him. That certainly how mainstream media presented it.

 

Quote:
Even if the membership hands the leader his ass on a plate in unprecedented fashion, the leader can decide to stay on according to the rules he himself wrote.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true. It merely reflects on the person who's repeating the falsehoods.

 

Mulcair's team changed the way the party deals with leadership and in so doing resulted in the rules we have today where the party cannot remove a leader.

So in effect, before Mulcair each convention was a leadership convention and the leader could be challenged and replaced, now there is no way to remove a leader whatsoever.

Nice try with the spin, you should be working in Mulcairs office....

Unionist

It becomes quite challenging to have a conversation when nested quotes get messed up.

Thanks, Coldwell, for pointing out to Notalib what should be obvious to anyone who takes a minute to look things up.

We can differ on whether it's "appropriate" for Mulcair to resign or not. I personally don't care, because I'm not a Cult of the Leader person. But to suggest that the delegates voted "non-confidence" in him - or (worse) that if they did, such "non-confidence" necessarily overrides the members who elected him by secret ballot as provided by the constitution - is factually false. If someone doesn't like the rules - change them (that would be convention).

Oddly enough, no one (literally, no one) suggested changing the constitution before they ended up with a result they don't like (i.e., Mulcair not resigning). And even odder, I haven't seen or heard of any public outcry to change the rules next time.

Coldwell Coldwell's picture

Notalib wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Notalib wrote:

Mr Mulcair and his team wrote the rules that make it impossible for the party to remove him from leadership.

That's not true. Leaders have been elected by a universal ballot of the membership since 2003. The only difference between the 2003 vote that elected Layton and the 2012 vote that elected Mulcair is that the union bloc vote, comprising 25% of the total vote, was abolished after 2003. What remains in force is the constitutional requirement for the leader to pass a leadership review vote at every biennial convention [Art. VI(3)(a)(v)]. Every leader has cleared that hurdle except Mulcair. 

So the question is: if delegates vote in favour of a leadership review, is it appropriate for the leader to remain in office? I think the answer is an unequivocal no. One can quibble about the technical meaning of "leadership review," but everyone knows it's a de facto confidence vote. Any leader who fails it loses the moral and political authority to remain in office. 

FYI: NDP Constitution as amended, April 2013:

 http://xfer.ndp.ca/2013/constitution/2013_CONSTITUTION_E.pdf

nicky

If the caucus wanted Tom gone I am sure he would go. It is a very important factor that the caucus has asked him to stay. Do you , Coldwell, Notalib and Prince K think that fact is irrelevant and that you know more than the MPs who serve with him?

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

So in effect, before Mulcair each convention was a leadership convention and the leader could be challenged and replaced, now there is no way to remove a leader whatsoever.

I think Coldwell has set you straight on that nonsensical falsehood, even though I tried on several occasions.

Quote:
Nice try with the spin, you should be working in Mulcairs office....

Bingo. Outed. I do work in Mulcair's office. You're actually the first one to figure that out. For years I've been posting how I've voted for him (in Outremont) ever since the 2007 byelection, worked for him, promoted him in the union movement... But no one put 2 + 2 together until just now.

My hat is off. Félicitations! Nicely done.

Pondering

Rules were made when leaders were expected to behave honorably. If we didn't realise it when Trudeau 1 was in power we discovered under Harper that parliamentary custom is voluntary and that in practice our Prime Minister is more powerful than the President. Politicians used to resign automatically. In another time Mulcair would have resigned immediately after receiving such little support. Politicians like business people have no shame anymore. As long as they haven't broken a criminal law they just brazen it out.

It would have been generous and honorable for Mulcair to say that after speaking with caucus he was willing to lead the party while it searched for a new leader or new direction but that he would take some time to discover if that was what the members wanted or if they would prefer a different leader during the interim.

He probably would have received a lot of support to stay on. Instead he maneuvered to keep the leadership up to another two years without any regard for what the membership wants.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

It would have been generous and honorable for Mulcair to say that after speaking with caucus he was willing to lead the party while it searched for a new leader or new direction but that he would take some time to discover if that was what the members wanted or if they would prefer a different leader during the interim.

I'm quite sure that's what he said to caucus. Once they overwhelmingly asked him to stay, you wanted him to go to the podium and say:

"Well, they've asked me to stay, and I'm willing to do so until my successor is elected, but if I find out (by some means) that the members don't want me around (before they've had a chance to vote, that is), I'll quit."

Pondering wrote:
He probably would have received a lot of support to stay on. Instead he maneuvered to keep the leadership up to another two years without any regard for what the membership wants.

He "maneuvered to keep the leadership". He is the elected leader. How exactly did he maneuver to keep the leadership? By not quitting voluntarily? How Macchiavellian of him.

 

josh

nicky wrote:

If the caucus wanted Tom gone I am sure he would go. It is a very important factor that the caucus has asked him to stay. Do you , Coldwell, Notalib and Prince K think that fact is irrelevant and that you know more than the MPs who serve with him?

This is a red herring.  This is his decision.  After running a campaign that took the party from first to third, and failing to get a majority at the party's convention to avoid a leadership contest, the right and dignified thing to do is to step down. 

R.E.Wood

nicky wrote:

 I suspect in time the party will come to regret the very unwise decision it made on Sunday. Many already do.

Nope. Not in the least. I think he should have resigned on election night, and as I've said before I think he was an awful fit for the job in almost every way (outside of QP, which doesn't win elections). I'm still buzzing with joy and wonder at the power of the anti-Mulcair vote, and I'm energized and excited about the leadership race ahead, and the wealth of candidates that I'm sure will come to the forefront.

Unionist

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

If the caucus wanted Tom gone I am sure he would go. It is a very important factor that the caucus has asked him to stay. Do you , Coldwell, Notalib and Prince K think that fact is irrelevant and that you know more than the MPs who serve with him?

This is a red herring.  This is his decision.  After running a campaign that took the party from first to third, and failing to get a majority at the party's convention to avoid a leadership contest, the right and dignified thing to do is to step down. 

Josh - I'm no fan of Mulcair's politics, nor of the disturbing direction the party has taken over many years. But I don't think this is a "red herring". I know Mulcair. Had caucus in significant numbers told him, in that brief meeting after the vote was announced, that he should go, I am absolutely certain he would have gone. If you have some credible theory as to why he didn't quit, please state it. I asked that question here right after his speech, and other than "oh the extra salary and the driver" etc. from the usual suspects, no one has offered an opinion.

What do you think? Seriously?

 

Unionist

R.E.Wood wrote:

nicky wrote:

 I suspect in time the party will come to regret the very unwise decision it made on Sunday. Many already do.

Nope. Not in the least. I think he should have resigned on election night, and as I've said before I think he was an awful fit for the job in almost every way (outside of QP, which doesn't win elections). I'm still buzzing with joy and wonder at the power of the anti-Mulcair vote, and I'm energized and excited about the leadership race ahead, and the wealth of candidates that I'm sure will come to the forefront.

I understand - and you've been consistent in that stand.

But in keeping with the (slightly inaccurate) topic of this thread, do you still feel the way you did on Sunday evening, that Mulcair is "being graceful" and "doing the right thing and maintaining stability while the party selects a new leader"?

josh

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

nicky wrote:

If the caucus wanted Tom gone I am sure he would go. It is a very important factor that the caucus has asked him to stay. Do you , Coldwell, Notalib and Prince K think that fact is irrelevant and that you know more than the MPs who serve with him?

This is a red herring.  This is his decision.  After running a campaign that took the party from first to third, and failing to get a majority at the party's convention to avoid a leadership contest, the right and dignified thing to do is to step down. 

Josh - I'm no fan of Mulcair's politics, nor of the disturbing direction the party has taken over many years. But I don't think this is a "red herring". I know Mulcair. Had caucus in significant numbers told him, in that brief meeting after the vote was announced, that he should go, I am absolutely certain he would have gone. If you have some credible theory as to why he didn't quit, please state it. I asked that question here right after his speech, and other than "oh the extra salary and the driver" etc. from the usual suspects, no one has offered an opinion.

What do you think? Seriously?

 

 

Oh, I've said it.  He probably still thinks he can retain the leadership.  Notice he hasn't ruled out running.  And see Nicky's post above as to what his folks are hoping for.

Debater

Unionist wrote:

Notalib wrote:

So in effect, before Mulcair each convention was a leadership convention and the leader could be challenged and replaced, now there is no way to remove a leader whatsoever.

I think Coldwell has set you straight on that nonsensical falsehood, even though I tried on several occasions.

Quote:
Nice try with the spin, you should be working in Mulcairs office....

Bingo. Outed. I do work in Mulcair's office. You're actually the first one to figure that out. For years I've been posting how I've voted for him (in Outremont) ever since the 2007 byelection, worked for him, promoted him in the union movement... But no one put 2 + 2 together until just now.

My hat is off. Félicitations! Nicely done.

I have been wondering for a while why you kept avoiding my question as to whether Mulcair should be replaced as leader.

I could tell you were a supporter of Mulcair underneath, but I didn't know you actually worked for him as a Constituency Assistant!

Caissa

Even if Tom resigned as leader, caucus could choose to have him be their leader in the House. I thought Tom should have resigned on election night. That said, I support him as leader choosing to stay on until he can hand over the reins to the leader after a duly constituted leadership race.

quizzical

josh wrote:
Oh, I've said it.  He probably still thinks he can retain the leadership.  Notice he hasn't ruled out running.  And see Nicky's post above as to what his folks are hoping for.

"his folks" distastefully?????

i suppose it's fair enough because i believe you and others like you here were instrumental 'Justin's folk' in helping the NDP to defeat. things said here became verbatim in the news cycles about the "left" not supporting the Mulcair and the NDP.

too bad 52% of the NDP have poor self esteem.

nicky

Debater, I think Unionist is being ironical.

debater has also posted in another thread today's post-convention Abacus poll. I don't wish to interrupt R. E. Wood's glee, but the positive electoral effect he hopes for has so far not been realized. Tom's rejection has resulted in a sharp decline in support for the party, precipitously so in Quebec.

josh

sharp decline in support for the party, 

 

Yes, it went from 13% last week to 12% this week.  And this "sharp" decline could have been due because of disappointment regarding Mulcair's refusal to leave the stage.

nicky

16 to 13 actually. 23 to 12 in Quebec

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
R.E.Wood wrote:
nicky wrote:
 I suspect in time the party will come to regret the very unwise decision it made on Sunday. Many already do.

Nope. Not in the least. I think he should have resigned on election night, and as I've said before I think he was an awful fit for the job in almost every way (outside of QP, which doesn't win elections). I'm still buzzing with joy and wonder at the power of the anti-Mulcair vote, and I'm energized and excited about the leadership race ahead, and the wealth of candidates that I'm sure will come to the forefront.

I understand - and you've been consistent in that stand.

But in keeping with the (slightly inaccurate) topic of this thread, do you still feel the way you did on Sunday evening, that Mulcair is "being graceful" and "doing the right thing and maintaining stability while the party selects a new leader"?

i hope so.

imv Mulcair's only leadership role is doing his job well in the HoC and QP as leader.

the operations of a national party across a large country shouldn't come down to the leader of any party.

i think  getting rid of the cult of leader as you suggested would go a long way to dispell this  wanting a prince charming to rescue everyone. 

Debater

nicky wrote:
Debater, I think Unionist is being ironical. debater has also posted in another thread today's post-convention Abacus poll. I don't wish to interrupt R. E. Wood's glee, but the positive electoral effect he hopes for has so far not been realized. Tom's rejection has resulted in a sharp decline in support for the party, precipitously so in Quebec.

Perhaps Unionist is being ironical.  I can't tell.  I don't know if he officially works for Mulcair in Outremont, but he did say last Summer he was assisting in Anne Lagacé-Dowson's campaign in Papineau (which borders Outremont).

In any event, Unionist has been reluctant to call for a leadership change.  He's right that changing the leader is not the solution to everything.  The Liberals learned that over the past decade in the wilderness.  But, finding the right leader is important, as the Liberals showed last year.  Trudeau's personality was a big part of the win, just as Jack Layton's was.

Unionist

Debater wrote:

Perhaps Unionist is being ironical.  I can't tell.

LOL!! I could have sworn you were being ironical when you pretended to believe me!!

Quote:
I don't know if he officially works for Mulcair in Outremont, but he did say last Summer he was assisting in Anne Lagacé-Dowson's campaign in Papineau (which borders Outremont).

Oh, give me a break. [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/tales-trenches-campaign-2015?page=...'s what I said[/url]:

Unionist, on Sept. 13, 2015 wrote:
I'm into armchair campaigning myself these days. Mulcair doesn't need my help to keep his seat, so I've been doing a little bit of networking (and personally donating) to support Anne Lagacé Dowson. I really like her, and I really dislike the incumbent.

That's correct. I gave her some money - and not Mulcair - because he didn't need my help. She did. Big time. And "networking" meant, like, Facebook and Twitter and chatting with my friends. In retrospect, maybe I should have actually campaigned for her. I will if she runs again. Maybe.

Quote:
In any event, Unionist has been reluctant to call for a leadership change.  He's right that changing the leader is not the solution to everything.

Correct. And that's the correct reason (in simplified form).

Quote:
But, finding the right leader is important, as the Liberals showed last year.  Trudeau's personality was a big part of the win, just as Jack Layton's was.

I don't really think so, in either case. Far more credit goes to hatred of Harper and collapse of the other oppositional party - in both cases.

Debater

The anti-Harper vote was certainly a big factor, but a movement needs a leader, a conduit, through which to channel its outrage, and both Trudeau & Layton proved the best at doing that.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

YAWN!

Having fun in this brain-dead thread??

Why don't you quit spamming threads with your complaints? You're complaining there are too many threads on NDP leadership even though you started one of them and you post in all of them bumping them to the top of the Active Topics list.

nicky

A Facebook posting from former leadership contender Steven Langdon which I thinks reflects what many think.

Steven Langdon I am, I fear, a good deal more angry than you. This is a man who demolished Harper, fought bravely against C51 and defended human rights in the campaign. Don't call me for money any time soon.

NorthReport

Supported Mulcair for the leadership. During the election campaign was quite disappointed and because of the disaster on election nite felt the leader should have stepped down then. Last weekend the leader compounded his mistake by once again refusing to step down after a massive lack of support from the convention delegates in Edmonton (the expection was that a minimum of 70% support was required to stay on). There is obviously dissention in Caucus, but what do you do with someone who refuses to leave. To suggest that Caucus cannot decide is absurd. Unfortunately now, as the lame duck leader situation intensifies, Caucus will have to address the issue probably sooner rather than later. Hopefully this does not turn into another Carole James situation the direction of which this may be heading. 

 

terrytowel

NorthReport wrote:

 Hopefully this does not turn into another Carole James situation the direction of which this may be heading. 

Mulcair detractors can always ask newly elected MP Jenny Kwan for advice on that, as she was the one leading the charge to oust Carole James.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You're complaining there are too many threads on NDP leadership even though you started one of them

To be fair, it was to say that the NDP doesn't even need a leader, much less ten threads about who it must be.

Quote:
and you post in all of them bumping them to the top of the Active Topics list.

With or without Unionist, they're self-bumping.  Until Tom goes back in time to resign -- which is seeming increasingly unlikely -- people are going to need to get it off their chest that Tom needs to go back in time and resign. 

And should those folk eventually tire of repeating their opinion of what Tom should have done -- which is seeming increasingly unlikely -- then concerned babblers will surely remind us that some-or-other person thinks Tom should have abdicated, or that some-or-other person thinks the NDP needs a new vision, or that some-or-other person believes that leadership isn't an entry-level position.  Can't really lay that at Unionist's feet.

Notalib

So here in BC where the NDP performed best in the last election, and on Vancouver Island where the party did better than anywhere in the Nation, a blogger from a riding that won handely - who is a former candidate and lifetime member in his seventies - writes this about Mulcair's bizarre decision to defy gravity and cling to office.

Found here: http://richardhughes.ca/52-percent-vote-to-oust-mulcair-but-he-is-stayin...

52 Percent Vote To Oust Mulcair- But He Is Staying On With Caucus Support!-***Updated By Richard Hughes, on April 10th, 2016

Richard 'Hub' HughesIt is highly unusual when leaders are ousted by a vote as was done at the National NDP convention in Edmonton today.

Where it gets really weird is that Thomas Mulcair, bolstered by his largely out of touch caucus, seems to be ignoring the vote for a leadership contest and is digging in to continue his top down control despite being delivered an unprecedented rejection by the membership in attendance at the convention.

When many New Democrats called for his resignation after losing over a million votes in the last election there was the pushback demand that there was a process to be followed.

Mulcair loses vote but stays on as leader!

Mulcair loses vote but stays on as leader!

Well the convention was the process, but now it seems that their response is, ‘Screw You’ we are staying and we will control the play from hereon out.

For Mulcair to remain on as leader now shows a shocking disrespect and unequalled arrogance that could very much split the party down the middle.

Mulcair really should have stepped down following the disastrous federal campaign that seemed more like ‘Conservative Lite’ than even middle of the road NDP.

They allowed Justin Trudeau to pick the low hanging fruit and he outflanked the NDP by taking a progressive left posture that the Mulcair campaign had abandoned.

josh

nicky wrote:
16 to 13 actually. 23 to 12 in Quebec

No, I'm comparing it to the Forum poll that came out at the end of last week.

nicky

Josh, I'm comparing the two polls taken by Abacus just before and after the convention. Better to compare apples to apples. Rather than apples to garbage as the Forum poll is usually regarded.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Where it gets really weird is that Thomas Mulcair, bolstered by his largely out of touch caucus, seems to be ignoring the vote for a leadership contest

We'll need to wait for that leadership contest to see if Mulcair ignores it.

Quote:
Well the convention was the process, but now it seems that their response is, ‘Screw You’ we are staying and we will control the play from hereon out.

Does this esteemed blogger understand that until that leadership contest, Mulcair remains the leader?  In the same way that (just to grab a simple example that even Richard Hughes might understand) Barack Obama is still the POTUS until the upcoming November election?

Jesus.  What's tough about this??

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

Oddly enough, no one (literally, no one) suggested changing the constitution before they ended up with a result they don't like (i.e., Mulcair not resigning). And even odder, I haven't seen or heard of any public outcry to change the rules next time.

I heard some members on social media who are upset and want to change the constitution to have leadership review questions be done by secret ballot in the same way leadership elections are done, since they feel the delegate vote was not representative.  These are those who are fans of Mulcair.  I myself feel the vote for a leadership convention was a mistake, but what's done is done.

One motion that did get made and passed that directly dealt with a clause (see below) in the constitution was to have the vote within two years rather than within one.  So, while they voted to get a new leader, they also voted to take their time about it.

Quote:
3(a)(v) If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.

So, if the delegates were actually in a rush to replace Mulcair asap, then they would not have approved extending this to "within two years" from "within one year".

As nicky said, it will be useful for the NDP to have Mulcair around now, since he's good in the House, to keep pressure on the government and to assist the other members of caucus with important issues (IE, Tracy Ramsey, the Trade Critic, has spoken of how helpful Mulcair has been to her -- and the whole TPP issue will be coming up.)  His role for the NDP now will be similar to what Bob Rae did for the Liberals before Trudeau took over the leadership.

Notalib

I noticed you skipped over the comments about the display of shocking disrespect and unequalled arrogance.

Something on full display here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I noticed you skipped over the comments about the display of shocking disrespect and unequalled arrogance.

Perhaps because opinions are like assholes -- everyone's got one.

Quote:
Something on full display here.

I think that "something" is called "a difference of opinion".

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

If the caucus wanted Tom gone I am sure he would go. It is a very important factor that the caucus has asked him to stay. Do you , Coldwell, Notalib and Prince K think that fact is irrelevant and that you know more than the MPs who serve with him?

The electorate said no thanks and the Convention said no thanks. He chose after both those overwhelming votes to stay the course. Mulcair should have resigned instead of putting his caucus into the position of having to support him despite the democratic votes that he lost.  It just goes to show that the more time you spend in Ottawa the more out of touch you get with voters and your own membership.

Pages